Fact-checking, once heralded as a journalistic cornerstone, now faces existential challenges. Meta has decided to end its third-party fact-checking programme, opting instead for a community-driven model called “Community Notes” in the United States. This shifts the responsibility of content verification on to users across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. While framed as a step towards enhancing free expression, the move has ignited debates about the potential proliferation of misinformation. Prioritising user-generated oversight over fact-checkers’ validation could weaken efforts to ensure accuracy and truth.
The World Economic Forum in 2024 has already ranked disinformation as the number one short-term threat in India and globally, underscoring the urgency of addressing the issue. The decision’s ripple effects extend globally, notably in India and Europe.
In India, where disinformation is a critical issue, the absence of robust fact-checking could exacerbate the spread of politically motivated falsehoods. Meta’s platforms have previously been exploited to destabilise countries and influence elections. The new model, if implemented in India, may embolden bad actors, leaving users and institutions ill-equipped to counter disinformation. India’s political landscape may shift towards increased polarisation. Social media disinformation has historically fuelled divisive narratives and public unrest. Health-related falsehoods, during disease outbreaks, pose direct threats to public safety and institutional trust. With Meta scaling back professional oversight, the responsibility shifts to regulatory bodies to mitigate these risks. Many fact-checking organisations depend on Meta’s funding. If Meta ends its fact-checking partnerships in India, it could lead to reduced funding and diminished online visibility, forcing some organisations to scale down or shut down entirely. Beyond financial concerns, the potential for a shift in content moderation practices may complicate the regulatory landscape. The compatibility of the new approach with existing Indian regulations, such as the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, will remain uncertain.
In the European Union (EU), Meta’s shift may challenge the regulatory framework of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates platforms to combat disinformation. European regulators may view the decision as undermining democratic safeguards. As Meta shifts from third-party fact-checking to a community-driven model in the US, the company’s operations in Europe will remain under scrutiny. Under the DSA, which applies to very large online platforms (VLOPs) like Facebook and Instagram, Meta is required to conduct comprehensive risk assessments before removing its fact-checking policies or implementing significant changes that could affect user safety or content integrity.
With this new move, Meta has increased the reputation risk for companies advertising on Facebook and Instagram. A surge in disinformation could tarnish brand reputations, especially if false claims about products or services gain traction. Companies must navigate these challenges carefully, ensuring their messaging remains credible amid an evolving digital landscape. Partnering with reliable verification sources and adopting proactive communication strategies will be crucial.
The effectiveness of Meta’s Community Notes model remains uncertain with user-driven moderation introducing vulnerabilities, including the risk of manipulation by bots or organised groups. The system’s reliance on consensus may also fail in addressing complex or politically sensitive issues. For the model to succeed, Meta must invest in robust safeguards and adapt strategies to protect its diverse global user base. Meta’s decision signals a turning point for digital platforms and the broader media landscape. As the fact-checking industry grapples with reduced influence, the pursuit of truth becomes increasingly dependent on collective responsibility. Whether Community Notes can rise to the challenge or exacerbate existing issues remains to be seen. The moment underscores a critical question: In the battle between free expression and truth, where should the line be drawn?
The writer is German Chancellor Fellow, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
